-
Sky UK Ltd
A website and TV ad for Sky was not found to be misleading.
-
Sky UK Ltd
A TV and website ad for Sky were banned for not making the full cost of a discount package sufficiently clear.
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
Two newspaper ads for O2 made misleading claims about the total cost of an iPad and Surface Pros.
-
Sky UK Ltd
A TV ad misleadingly implied Sky offered the UK’s lowest-priced superfast broadband.
-
Privax Ltd t/a HMA VPN
A TV ad for a virtual private network did not make misleading claims about the security benefit of the product.
-
EE Ltd t/a EE
Ads across print, online and social media did not make the basis of EE's network performance claims sufficiently clear.
-
Hutchison 3G UK Ltd t/a Three UK, 3
A tweet and newspaper ad promoting Three’s 5G service were banned for being misleading.
-
Adwick Caravans Ltd t/a Adwick Caravans
A Facebook post promoting a competition to win a caravan did not clearly communicate the closing date or the prize on offer.
-
British Telecommunications plc t/a BT, BT Group plc, BT Sport, BT TV
A press, website and two TV ads by BT misleadingly guaranteed its Wi-Fi worked in every room in a house and suggested Wi-Fi discs do not need to be plugged in.
-
Telefonica UK Ltd t/a O2
A website and YouTube ad by O2 was banned for making misleading claims about its contract packages.
-
Vodafone Ltd t/a Voxi, vodafone
Claims on a website, newspaper and Facebook ads broke the rules for not making sufficiently clear that Vodafone plans would not deliver 5G speeds.
Rulings
Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following investigation, the advertising rules apply and where we draw the line in judging whether an ad has broken the rules. We also publish a list of companies and organisations which, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.
Rulings (11)